From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Nottingham Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 05:34:56 +0000 Subject: Re: OT(?) -- Should the net.agent script cause "ifup lo" to be run? Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org David Brownell (david-b@pacbell.net) said: > > Please clarify. What I'm saying is that PPP is so fundamentally different > > that you *can't* fit it into the ethernet model, even in a 2.5 framework, > > unless you're willing to redesign the whole kernel/pppd/dialer interaction, > > which would be a lot of code and would probably meet with a lot of > > resistance. > > I didn't say turn PPP into Ethernet, or vice versa, but find the > commonality. It's there somewhere in the OS ... if some parts > of the initialization model are only available implicitly by using > interface names (which can change, someone said) then it should > be made explicit, so tools can work without heuristics. (OK, > some folk really like heuristics there, I don't.) If the model is > needlessly complex, simplify it. > > For one example, it can be argued that it's wrong for the kernel > to report that "ppp0" has been "registered". It's in some config > file somewhere, "registered" but just not known to the kernel. > Maybe "register" is the wrong network hotplug event to report > in such a case, hmm? Maybe. It technically is a registration event, though, in that's when the device is first registered. I guess the distinction is that a ppp device is registered as *part* of the process of bringing it up. Ethernet devices aren't. Bill _______________________________________________ Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel